Novel and Conservative Approaches Towards Effective Management of Plantar Fasciitis.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. 19. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Nov;96(44):e8475. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008475. Platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for plantar fasciitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Yang WY(1), Han YH, Cao XW, Pan JK, Zeng LF, Lin JT, Liu J. Author information: (1)Department of Orthopaedics, Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine) Second School of Clinical Medicine, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. BACKGROUND: Recently, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used as an alternative therapy for plantar fasciitis (PF) to reduce heel pain and improve functional restoration. We evaluated the current evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of PRP as a treatment for PF compared with the efficacy and safety of steroid treatments. METHODS: Databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library) were searched from their establishment to January 30, 2017, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRP with steroid injections as treatments for PF. The Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) tool was used to assess the methodological quality. Outcome measurements were the visual analogue scale (VAS), Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale, and the Roles and Maudsley score (RMS). The statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3.5 software. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (n = 430) were included in this meta-analysis. Significant differences in the VAS were not observed between the 2 groups after 4 [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -1.10 to 2.23, P = .51, I = 89%] or 12 weeks of treatment (WMD = -0.49, 95% CI: -1.42 to 0.44, P = .30, I = 89%). However, PRP exhibited better efficacy than the steroid treatment after 24 weeks (WMD = -0.95, 95% CI: -1.80 to -0.11, P = .03, I = 85%). Moreover, no significant differences in the FADI, AOFAS, and RMS were observed between the 2 therapies (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Limited evidence supports the conclusion that PRP is superior to steroid treatments for long-term pain relief; however, significant differences were not observed between short and intermediate effects. Because of the small sample size and the limited number of high-quality RCTs, additional high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are required to validate this result. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008475 PMCID: PMC5682822